Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics for the six latent constructs in the final sample (N=265) are reported in Table 1, and their mean values are summarized in Figure 2. The mean scores are 5.12 for Digital Art Integration, 5.65 for Perceived Value of Art, 5.28 for Technology Self-Efficacy, 5.41 for Student Engagement, 5.09 for Academic Performance, and 5.74 for Digital Literacy. Digital Literacy has the highest mean, while Academic Performance has the lowest. Correlations among the constructs are reported in Table 2.
Measurement model
The The measurement model was assessed for internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The measurement model is shown in Figure 3. Indicator loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) are reported in Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are presented uniformly as decimals to three decimal places. The HTMT results are reported in Table 4.
Hypotheses testing
The structural model was assessed to test the proposed hypotheses, examining the direct, mediating, and moderating relationships within the research framework. Using a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 subsamples, the significance of the path coefficients (β), t-statistics, and p-values was calculated to determine the support for each hypothesis. The results of the hypothesis testing are presented in Table 5.
PLS predict
The predictive power of the structural model was assessed using PLS Predict, a procedure that evaluates the model's out-of-sample predictive capability. This analysis employs a k-fold cross-validation approach to generate prediction errors for the key endogenous construct, Academic Performance. The results are presented in Table 6, comparing the root mean square errors (RMSEs) of the PLS-SEM model against a naive linear model (LM) benchmark. PLS Predict Assessment for Academic Performance is visualized in Figure 4.
DATA AVAILABILITY:
The data for this study are provided in Supplementary File 1.

Figure 1: Research Model. The figure presents the integrated research model. It illustrates how Digital Art Integration, Perceived Value of Art, and Technology Self-Efficacy directly influence Student Learning Engagement, which, in turn, determines Academic Performance in English. The model uniquely incorporates Digital Literacy as a moderator, testing its conditional effect on the relationship between engagement and performance, thereby exploring the core "digital paradox" of modern education. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Mean values of the six latent constructs (N=265). The radar chart presents the mean scores for Digital Art Integration (5.12), Perceived Value of Art (5.65), Technology Self-Efficacy (5.28), Student Engagement (5.41), Academic Performance (5.09), and Digital Literacy (5.74). Digital Literacy has the highest mean, and Academic Performance has the lowest. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Established measurement model. The figure presents the established measurement model illustrating the relationships between latent constructs and their observed indicators. Each construct is represented by a blue node, while the yellow nodes denote the measured items used to operationalize the constructs. The model demonstrates satisfactory construct specification across domains such as digital literacy, student engagement, attitudes, and academic performance. Overall, it provides a clear structural foundation for validating the reliability and validity of the proposed constructs in the study. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: PLS predict assessment for academic performance. The figure presents the PLS-Predict assessment for academic performance indicators (AP1-AP4), combining Q²_predict values and RMSE comparisons. The positive Q²_predict values across all indicators indicate that the model demonstrates adequate out-of-sample predictive relevance. Lower RMSE values for the PLS model compared to benchmark predictions suggest superior predictive accuracy. Overall, the results confirm the robustness and predictive capability of the structural model for academic performance outcomes. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Construct | Number of Items | Mean | Standard Deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
| Digital Art Integration | 40 | 5.12 | 0.89 | -0.45 | 0.32 |
| Perceived Value of Art | 19 | 5.65 | 0.76 | -0.61 | 0.85 |
| Technology Self-Efficacy | 10 | 5.28 | 0.95 | -0.32 | -0.11 |
| Student Engagement | 9 | 5.41 | 0.82 | -0.53 | 0.47 |
| Academic Performance | 4 | 5.09 | 1.02 | -0.28 | -0.24 |
| Digital Literacy | 29 | 5.74 | 0.71 | -0.68 | 1.02 |
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the latent constructs (N = 265). This table presents the descriptive statistics of the latent constructs based on responses from 265 participants. The mean scores for all constructs are above the scale midpoint, indicating generally positive perceptions of digital art integration, digital literacy, engagement, and academic performance. The relatively low standard deviations suggest moderate variability and consistent responses among participants. Negative skewness values across constructs indicate a tendency toward higher agreement, while kurtosis values close to zero (and within acceptable limits) suggest that the data are approximately normally distributed. Overall, the results support the suitability of the data for subsequent multivariate analyses.
| Construct | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 1. Digital Art Integ. | 0.824 | | | | | |
| 2. Perceived Value Art | 0.487** | 0.791 | | | | |
| 3. Tech. Self-Efficacy | 0.421** | 0.352** | 0.865 | | | |
| 4. Student Engagement | 0.532** | 0.598** | 0.445** | 0.833 | | |
| 5. Academic Performance | 0.411** | 0.467** | 0.383** | 0.621** | 0.889 | |
| 6. Digital Literacy | 0.395** | 0.324** | 0.512** | 0.387** | 0.301** | 0.803 |
Table 2: Correlation matrix of latent constructs. This table presents the correlation matrix of the latent constructs, showing that all constructs are positively and significantly correlated with one another at the 0.01 level, indicating meaningful relationships within the proposed model. Digital Art Integration demonstrates moderate correlations with Perceived Value of Art, Student Engagement, and Academic Performance, suggesting its important role in shaping both attitudinal and outcome variables. Student Engagement shows the strongest association with Academic Performance, highlighting its central mediating role in learning outcomes. The diagonal values, representing the square roots of AVE, are higher than the corresponding inter-construct correlations, supporting adequate discriminant validity among the constructs. Overall, the results indicate a coherent and theoretically consistent pattern of relationships suitable for structural model testing.
| Construct | Dimension | Items | Loadings Range | Cronbach's Alpha (α) | Composite Reliability (CR) | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
| Digital Art Integration | Art Integration | 20 | 0.712 - 0.861 | 0.930 | 0.942 | 0.679 |
| Attitude Towards Art | 8 | 0.734 - 0.845 | 0.890 | 0.917 | 0.612 |
| Attitude Towards Course | 12 | 0.705 - 0.828 | 0.910 | 0.924 | 0.587 |
| Perceived Value of Art | Quality Value | 6 | 0.768 - 0.852 | 0.900 | 0.926 | 0.678 |
| Emotional Value | 5 | 0.791 - 0.869 | 0.910 | 0.935 | 0.743 |
| Price Value | 4 | 0.723 - 0.841 | 0.840 | 0.892 | 0.676 |
| Social Value | 4 | 0.745 - 0.831 | 0.858 | 0.901 | 0.695 |
| Technology Self-Efficacy | - | 10 | 0.752 - 0.884 | 0.924 | 0.939 | 0.748 |
| Student Engagement | Cognitive Engagement | 3 | 0.831 - 0.879 | 0.872 | 0.921 | 0.795 |
| Emotional Engagement | 3 | 0.845 - 0.891 | 0.889 | 0.931 | 0.818 |
| Behavioral Engagement | 3 | 0.821 - 0.866 | 0.861 | 0.914 | 0.779 |
| Academic Performance | - | 4 | 0.851 - 0.914 | 0.905 | 0.933 | 0.777 |
| Digital Literacy | Technological Literacy | 7 | 0.718 - 0.842 | 0.887 | 0.912 | 0.601 |
| Personal Security | 5 | 0.731 - 0.856 | 0.871 | 0.906 | 0.659 |
| Critical Literacy | 5 | 0.754 - 0.845 | 0.882 | 0.915 | 0.684 |
| Device Security | 4 | 0.722 - 0.838 | 0.834 | 0.888 | 0.665 |
| Information Literacy | 5 | 0.768 - 0.861 | 0.896 | 0.922 | 0.703 |
| Communication Literacy | 3 | 0.795 - 0.854 | 0.845 | 0.905 | 0.76 |
Table 3: Measurement Model Assessment (Reliability and Convergent Validity). Table 3 reports indicator loading ranges and internal consistency and convergent validity statistics for the constructs and their dimensions. Indicator loadings range from 0.705 to 0.914, Cronbach’s alpha from 0.834 to 0.930, composite reliability (CR) from 0.888 to 0.942, and average variance extracted (AVE) from 0.587 to 0.818. Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE are reported as decimal coefficients, with Cronbach’s alpha presented consistently to three decimal places. These statistics are reported for assessment of the measurement model’s internal consistency and convergent validity.
| Construct | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 1. Digital Art Integ. | | | | | | |
| 2. Perceived Value Art | 0.531 | | | | | |
| 3. Tech. Self-Efficacy | 0.462 | 0.387 | | | | |
| 4. Student Engagement | 0.581 | 0.641 | 0.488 | | | |
| 5. Academic Performance | 0.449 | 0.509 | 0.421 | 0.678 | | |
| 6. Digital Literacy | 0.433 | 0.355 | 0.561 | 0.424 | 0.33 | |
Table 4: Discriminant validity assessment using HTMT. This table presents the discriminant validity assessment using the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio, which indicates satisfactory discriminant validity across all latent constructs. All HTMT values are well below the conservative threshold of 0.85, suggesting that each construct is empirically distinct from the others. Although HTMT values are relatively higher between Student Engagement and Academic Performance and between Student Engagement and Perceived Value of Art, they remain within acceptable limits and are theoretically justifiable. Overall, the results confirm that the constructs capture unique concepts without excessive overlap, supporting the adequacy of the measurement model for further structural analysis.
| Hypothesis | Relationship | Beta (β) | t-value | p-value | f² | Decision |
| Direct Effects | | | | | |
| H1 | Digital Art Integration → Student Engagement | 0.274 | 5.124 | < 0.001 | 0.085 | Supported |
| H2 | Perceived Value of Art → Student Engagement | 0.381 | 7.892 | < 0.001 | 0.171 | Supported |
| H3 | Technology Self-Efficacy → Student Engagement | 0.198 | 3.876 | < 0.001 | 0.045 | Supported |
| H4 | Student Engagement → Academic Performance | 0.547 | 11.453 | < 0.001 | 0.347 | Supported |
| Mediating Effects | | | | | |
| H5 | DAI → SE → AP (Indirect Effect) | 0.15 | 4.521 | < 0.001 | - | Supported |
| H6 | PVA → SE → AP (Indirect Effect) | 0.208 | 6.112 | < 0.001 | - | Supported |
| H7 | TSE → SE → AP (Indirect Effect) | 0.108 | 3.445 | 0.001 | - | Supported |
| Moderating Effect | | | | | |
| H8 | DL x SE → Academic Performance | -0.095 | 2.341 | 0.019 | 1.80% | Supported |
Table 5: Results of structural model and hypotheses testing. This table presents the results of the structural model and hypotheses testing, revealing strong support for all proposed relationships. The direct effects indicate that Digital Art Integration, Perceived Value of Art, and Technology Self-Efficacy have significant positive influences on Student Engagement, with Perceived Value of Art showing the strongest effect. Student Engagement, in turn, exerts a substantial positive impact on Academic Performance, with a large effect size, confirming its central role in the model. The mediation analysis further shows that Student Engagement significantly mediates the relationships between Digital Art Integration, Perceived Value of Art, Technology Self-Efficacy, and Academic Performance, highlighting its mechanism in translating inputs into performance outcomes. Additionally, the moderating effect of Digital Literacy on the relationship between Student Engagement and Academic Performance is significant but negative, suggesting that higher levels of digital literacy slightly weaken this relationship. Overall, the findings confirm the robustness of the structural model and underscore the critical role of engagement in enhancing academic performance within a digitally enriched learning environment.
| Indicator | Q²_predict | PLS_RMSE | LM_RMSE |
| AP1 | 0.312 | 0.841 | 0.862 |
| AP2 | 0.285 | 0.867 | 0.901 |
| AP3 | 0.334 | 1 | 0.845 |
| AP4 | 0.301 | 1 | 0.888 |
Table 6: PLS predict assessment for academic performance. This table presents the PLS-Predict assessment for the academic performance indicators, demonstrating the model's out-of-sample predictive relevance. All Q²_predict values are positive, indicating that the model has adequate predictive power for all academic performance measures. For most indicators, the RMSE values of the PLS model are lower than those of the linear model, suggesting superior predictive accuracy of the PLS approach. Although slight variations are observed across indicators, the overall results confirm that the structural model exhibits acceptable and meaningful predictive performance for academic outcomes.
Supplementary File 1: The datasets used for this study. Please click here to download this file.